White Slavery Cloaked

"ROOTS," AND SUNDRY LIES

Since most people want to be deceived, the realm is deceiving them in a wholesale manner. Most people, especially “Whites,” and “Negros,” they love the phony, made up fairy tale called, “ROOTS.” They do, “They love it.” Why? Because is fills in the blanks in their reality, blanks left by “society,” when their entire being, down to the DNA is telling them that there is some B.S. afoot. Timelines don't match, science is fake, maps fake, fake history, propaganda, all and sundry B.S., and there is only so much lying one can do over the generations. It catches up. It has caught up. “WHEN YOU TELL ONE LIE YOU HAVE TO TELL ANOTHER,” and guess what? “Lies” don’t have details,” they never do. A judge taught me that. She is right.

People love the ROOTS hoax because it is a cleverly disguised STORY that hits “all the bases” of emotional B.S. It is the “emotional hook” that opens up the mind for deception, and what is more deceptive than to tell one group of people that YOU enslaved another? YOU ARE THE BAD GUY, YOU SHOULD BE GUILTY, YOU SHOULD PAY REPARATIONS, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF BEING ALIVE, YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD. Everything except you should know the TRUTH. You should keep being emotionally pliable, like putty, or guilty even, while operating in a fantasy, “Mr. Slave Master,” right? YOU SHOULD “DO IT ALL,” distracted, while being pillaged and plundered by foreign interests.

On the other side of the lie, the American Indian, now the “Nigger from Africa,” AFRICAN-AMERICAN the former slave. The “nothing” being, the lowly servant, THE FARM ANIMAL, who has been tricked out of his standing and estate. BLACK POWER, BLACK PANTHERS, and BLACK MOTHER AFRICA, the “slave” has risen, right? See the intentional division. “I can't be expected to associate with “slaves,” and as a “slave master” that is beneath me,” right? Although in truth both groups have been slaves or “contract indentures.” “Securitized” contracts that is.

Slavery is a lie, a cover to hide the Messianic “religious” groups who enslaved the Pre-Colonial people of this land, Whites and Indians, and utilized us as a inter-generational ATM for foreigners. They gave us “religion,”and a Bible, in exchange for our land, names, estates and relegated us to the position of labor animals. “Slavery” hoaxes are utilized to hide the truth, I believe. The people were not “slaves’ in chains, however they were under “enslavement” by “contract,” BOND indenture. The contracts were “traded” on Wall Street. The BOND Market still exists. Yes, people were mistreated, but they were not primarily “Africans,” they were ‘Whites and Indians or a mixture thereof. Yes, maybe a sprinkle of “Africans” too, but you don’t go all the way to Africa to buy a suit when you have a million of them right here. It does not make financial sense. Again, “lies don’t have details.”

“White people” have been lied to. Why? So that the liars could deflect their culpability and the enormity of it all, their crimes. Lies were created via public school, and the “Whites” forgot who they were and how they got to the point they were and are at. They did not know they are victims too, they bought the psy-op, and directed their attention towards people they “could see” being victimized. They were glad it was not them, and they were indifferent to the evil. The following video may shed a bit of visual light on this topic. Many thanks to Danielle, “Keep digging.”

It's the same Messianic fanatics, AGAIN, that enslaved “Whites,” and made them believe it was being done to “Africans.” History Refresh: “BRIT” means “COVENANT,” and “ish,” means man. What “covenant?” What “man?” King James, is King Jacob in Hebrew. The colonies were called, “The Hebrew Republic” of Massachusetts. The colonist considered themselves “crossing the Red Sea,” to the “promised land.” Sound familiar? “Pharoah” and enslavement rewashed,” it is.

I don't want to hear any more whining or excuses. I have tried. The only thing that matters at this juncture is historical facts, or “receipts,” and as it stands, or should I say, “crawls,” the facts don't bide well for those M-Fers [Messianic Fanatics].

White Slavery in Early America

David Brion Davis writing in the New York Review of Books, Oct. 11, 1990, p. 37 states:

“As late as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, continuing shipments of white slaves, some of them Christians, flowed from the booming slave markets on the northern Black Sea coast into Italy, Spain, Egypt and the Mediterranean islands... From Barbados to Virginia, colonists.., showed few scruples about reducing their less fortunate countrymen to a status little different from that of chattel slaves... The prevalence and suffering of white slaves, serfs and indentured servants in the early modern period suggests that there was nothing inevitable about limiting plantation slavery to people of African origin.”

“L. Ruchames in “The Sources of Racial Thought in Colonial America,” states that “the slave trade worked in both directions, with white merchandise as well as black.” (Journal of Negro History, no. 52, pp. 251-273).”

“In 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate the Whites were referred to not as “indentured servants” but as “slaves” whose “enslavement” threatened the liberties of all Englishmen. (Thomas Burton, Parliamentary Diary: 1656- 59, vol. 4, pp. 253-274).”

“Foster R. Dulles in Labor in America quotes an early document describing White children in colonial servitude as “crying and mourning for redemption from their slavery.”

“Dr. Hilary McD. Beckles of the University of Hull, England, writes regarding White slave labor, “indenture contracts were alienable... the ownership of which could easily be transferred, like that of any other commodity... as with slaves, ownership changed without their participation in the dialogue concerning transfer.” Beckles refers to “indentured servitude” as “White proto-slavery” (The Americas, vol. 41, no. 2, p. 21).”

“In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series; America and West Indies of 1701, we read of a protest over the “encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their consent and selling them for slaves, which hath been a practice very frequent and known by the name of kidnapping.” (Emphasis added).

“In the British West Indies, plantation slavery was instituted as early as 1627. In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were White.”

“Some Observations on the Island of Barbados,” Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, p. 528). It is worth noting that while White slaves were worked to death in Barbados, there were Caribbean Indians brought from Guiana to help propagate native foodstuffs who were well-treated and received as free persons by the wealthy planters.”

“Of the fact that the wealth of Barbados was founded on the backs of White slave labor there can be no doubt. White slave laborers from Britain and Ireland were the mainstay of the sugar colony. Until the mid-1640s there were few Blacks in Barbados. George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645, that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White slave labor “out of England” if they wanted to succeed. (Elizabeth Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, pp. 125-126).”

“...White indentured servants were employed and treated, incidentally, exactly like slaves... “(Morley Ayearst, The British West Indies, p. 19).”

“The many gradations of unfreedom among Whites made it difficult to draw fast lines between any idealized free White worker and a pitied or scorned servile Black worker... in labor-short seventeenth and eighteenth-century America the work of slaves and that of White servants were virtually interchangeable in most areas.” (David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, p. 25).”

“In the Massachusetts Court of Assistants, whose records date to 1633, we find a 1638 description of a White man, one Gyles Player, as having been “delivered up for a slave.”

“The Englishman William Eddis, after observing White slaves in America in the 1770s wrote, “Generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage” (Letters from America, London, 1792). Governor Sharpe of the Maryland colony compared the property interest of the planters in their White slaves, with the estate of an English farmer consisting of a “Multitude of Cattle.”

“The Quock Walker case in Massachusetts in 1783 which ruled that slavery was contrary to the state Constitution, was applied equally to Blacks and Whites in Massachusetts.”

“Patrick F. Moran in his Historical Sketch of the Persecutions Suffered by the Catholics of Ireland, refers to the transportation of the Irish to the colonies as the “slave-trade” (pp. 343-346).

“The disciplinary and revenue laws of early Virginia (circa 1631-1645) did not discriminate Negroes in bondage from Whites in bondage. (William Hening [editor], Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. |, pp. 174, 198, 200, 243, 306. For records of wills in which “Lands, goods & chattels, cattle, moneys, negroes, English servants, horses, sheep and household stuff” were all sold together see the Lancaster County Records in Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Beverly Fleet, editor).”

“Lay historian Col. A.B. Ellis, writing in the British newspaper Argosy (May 6, 1893): “Few, but readers of old colonial State papers and records, are aware that between the years 1649-1690 a lively trade was carried on between England and the plantations, as the colonies were then called, in political prisoners... where they were sold by auction to the colonists for various terms of years, sometimes for life as slaves.”

“Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia referred to bound Whites assigned to the treasurer’s office to “belong to said office for ever.” The service of Whites bound to Berkeley’s Hundred was deemed “perpetual.” (Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860, vol. I, pp. 316, 318).”

“Certainly the enslaved Whites themselves recognized their conditionwith painful clarity. As one White man, named Abram, who was accused of trying to agitate a rebellion stated to his fellows, “Wherefore should wee stay here and be slaves?”

“In a statement smuggled out of the New World and published in London, Whites in bondage did not call themselves “indentured servants.” In their writing they referred to themselves as “England’s slaves” and England’s “merchandise.” (Marcellus Rivers and Oxenbridge Foyle, Englana’s Slavery, 1659).”

“Eyewitnesses like Pere Labat who visited the West Indian slave plantations of the 17th century which were built and manned by White slaves labeled them “White slaves” and nothing less (Memoirs of Pere Labat, 1693-1705, p. 125). Even Blacks referred to the White forced laborers in the colonies as “white slaves.” (Colonial Office, Public Records Office, London, 1667, no. 170)”

“Sot-Weed Factor, or, a Voyage to Maryland, a pamphlet circulated in 1708, articulates the plight of tens of thousands of pathetic young White girls kidnapped from England and enslaved in colonial America, lamenting that:

In better Times e’er to this Land I was unhappily Trepan’d;

Not then a slave... But things are changed... Kidnap’d and Fool’d...”

“The height of academic and media fraud is revealed in the monopolistic trademark status the official controllers of education and mass communications have successfully established between the definition of the word “slave” and the negro, while labeling descriptions of the historic experience of Whites in slavery a fallacy. Yet the very word “slave,” which the establishment’s consensus school of history pretends cannot legitimately be applied to Whites, is derived from the word Slav. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word slave is another name for the White people of eastern Europe, the Slavs. (Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p. 2,858).”

“In other words, slave has always been a term for and a definition of a servile condition of White people. Yet we are told by the professor-crats that it is not correct to refer to Whites as slaves but only as servants, even though the very root of the word is derived from the historical fact of White slavery.”

“White slavery and bondage in British colonial America cannot be fully understood without also understanding how British Whites came to be dehumanized in their homeland across the sea. The desperate condition of the poor Whites of Britain was most obvious in the cities. The English slums of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were pits of White suffering. London’s St. Giles was known locally as “Rat’s Castle.” A policeman who worked the area used metaphors from the insect world to describe the conditions of the poor Whites there, referring to them as “vermin haunted heaps of rags.”

Opening the door to a tiny shack the policeman discovered:

“Ten, twenty, thirty—who can count them? Men, women, children, for the most part naked, heaped upon the floor like maggots in a cheese... a spectral rising, unshrouded, from a grave of rags.” (“On Duty with Inspector Field,” in Household Words, June 14, 1851, pp. 265-267).”

Herman Melville, in his autobiographical account of his first voyage as a sailor, described the same living death in the English port city of Liverpool in 1839:

“I generally passed through a narrow street called ‘Launcelot’s-Hey... once passing through this place... I heard a feeble wail... It seemed the low, hopeless, endless wail of someone forever lost.”

“At last I advanced to an opening... to deep tiers of cellars beneath a crumbling old warehouse; and there, some fifteen feet below the walk, crouching in nameless squalor, with her head bowed over, was the figure of what had been a woman.”

“Her blue arms folded to her livid bosom two shrunken things like children that leaned toward her, one on each side. At first, I knew not whether they were alive or dead... They were dumb and next to dead with want. How they had crawled into that den, I could not tell; but there they had crawled to die.”

“l tried to lift the woman’s head; but feeble as she was, she seemed bent upon holding it down. Observing her arms clasped upon her bosom, and that something seemed hidden under the rags there, a thought crossed my mind which impelled me forcibly to withdraw her hands for a moment when I caught glimpse of a meager little babe, the lower part of its body thrust into an old bonnet.”

“Its face was dazzling white, even in its squalor; but the closed eyes looked like balls of indigo. It must have been dead some hours... I stood looking down on them, while my whole soul swelled within me; and | asked myself, what right had any body in the wide world to smile and be glad when sights like this were to be seen?” (Melville, Redburn: His First Voyage, Anchor Books edition, pp. 173-178).”

“Such is the course of nineteen out of twenty of the fatal cases originating in deficiency of food, as they occur among the destitute poor in our large towns—the first effect of the gradual starvation to which these persons are subjected... It is a strange anomaly to see in wealthy, civilized, Christian England, multitudes of men living in the lowest state of physical degradation and absolutely perishing from neglect... the fact is undeniable, that no inconsiderable portion of our fellow-creatures is living on food and in dwellings scarcely fit for brutes—certainly worse provided for than many of our domestic animals, and that the death of numbers is accelerated or indirectly produced by gradual and protracted starvation...” (Joseph Adshead, Distress in Manchester: Evidence Tabular and Otherwise of the State of the Laboring Classes in 1840-1842, pp. 49-50).”

“Charles Darwin’s uncle, factory owner Josiah Wedgewood, owned a business that worked White children of five years of age in a chemical factory permeated with lead oxide, a deadly poison. Wedgewood acknowledged that the lead made the children “very subject to disease” but worked them anyway.”

“The English writer Frances Trollope estimated that at least 200,000 English children were “snatched away” to factories, “...taken and lodged amid stench, and stunning, terrifying tumult; driven to and fro until their little limbs bend under them... the repose of a moment to be purchased only by yielding their tender bodies to the fist, the heel or the strap of the overlooker (overseer).” (Marcus Cunliffe, Chattel Slavery and Wage Slavery, p. 73).”

“In 1723 the Waltham Act was passed which classified more than 200 minor offenses such as stealing a rabbit from an aristocrat or breaking up his fishpond, a crime punishable by hanging. Starving youths, fourteen years old, were strung-up on Tyburn gallows for stealing as little as one sheep. When their bodies were cut down their parents had to fight over, them with agents of the Royal College of Physicians who had been empowered by the courts to use their remains for laboratory dissection.”

“The English historian William Cobbet stated in 1836, “The starving agricultural laborers of southern England are worse off than American negroes.” When in 1 834 English farm workers in Dorset tried to form a union in order to “preserve ourselves, our wives and our children from starvation” they were shipped into slavery in Australia for this “crime.” The situation of White factory workers was no better. Robert Owen declared in 1840, “The working classes of Great Britain are in a worse condition than any slaves in any country, in any period of the world’s history.”

“In 19th century England tens of thousands of White children were employed as slave laborers in British coal mines. Little White boys, seven years old, were harnessed like donkeys to coal carts and ordered to drag them through mine shafts. In 1843, White children aged four were working in the coal pits. In old English cemeteries can be seen epitaphs on grave stones like one which reads, “William Smith, aged eight years, Miner, died Jan. 3, 1841.”

“The root of of the holocaust against the White yeomanry of Britain lies in the history of the land swindles perpetrated against them in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. As the lords obtained their rights against the king as formalized in the Magna Carta, they used them to expropriate the land rights of the yeoman by means of the “writ of novel disseisin” [Action to recover lands of which the plaintiff had been dispossed] and what historian Rodney Hilton describes as other “lawyer’s traps.” Ownership was transferred to the lords. The people were allowed to remain on their ancestral lands with something akin to a sharecropper’s status.”

“By the 17th century even this tenancy was being eroded by the introduction of the enclosure laws, which fenced off land heretofore farmed in common by the people, as the landlords began to enforce their “property rights.” The net effect of enclosure, though it was at first slow in coming, was the eviction of the people from the land, a process begun toward the end of Elizabeth’s reign, necessitating the first “poor relief’ law for able-bodied, unemployed persons, known as “the 43rd Elizabeth,” (after the year of her reign in which it had been enacted, 1601).”

“This act transformed the old laws concerning community self-help based on voluntary, local alms-giving, to a general tax or “rate-paying,” administered through the Church of England for distribution in local parishes. As noble as the intent of the law may seem, it was little more than a token measure, intended not to halt the flood of misery generated by the dispossession of the British yeomen, but rather to placate the consciences of those who could see all too well the emergence of a new pattern of starvation and poverty, previously known in Britain mainly in times of war or pestilence.”

“The introduction of the 43rd Elizabeth marked the beginning of a holocaust against the poor of Britain justified by jurists and aristocrats and operated in the absence of the revolution in land reform which would have returned the farms to the people and effected the only genuine remedy for the poverty beginning to grip the working class.”

“To alleviate the symptoms of the land dispossession, four systems of bondage would evolve:

1. Poor relief.

2. White slavery in the colonies.

3. The workhouse.

4. The factory system. They would all develop their special horrors, each justified by pointing to the evils intrinsic in the previous scheme to “help the poor.”

“Poor relief” institutionalized the new stigma of “pauperism” and “parasitism” which the ruling class attached to the impoverished condition of the dispossessed yeomanry, as homelessness and starvation increased.”

“It was laid down that all recipients of poor relief should be compelled to wear the letter ‘P’ on their sleeves, and that they should be whipped if they neglected or refused to do so. The ‘P’ stood for a word which had already acquired its lasting stigma: pauper.” (Brian Inglis, Poverty and the Industrial Revolution, p.17).”

“The next phase of “relief” for indigent British Whites was their enslavement in the American colonies, which was made acceptable on the basis of the pauperism created by the enclosure laws and the dehumanization of the British poor as a lower order of man (when their humanity was conceded at all). Enslavement on the colonial plantations of America became a “mercy” because it transported Whites of “mean estate” out of the wretched streets and hovels of Britain by means of courts of assize and press gangs.”

“The Political Economy of the Industrial Revolution Enslavement overseas would not prove sufficient for the disposal of all of Britain’s “surplus” poor, however. The workhouse system, instituted by such High Church Tories as Sir Humphrey Mackworth, flattered itself with the claim that the poor people of Britain were generally in the fix that they were, due to their own “folly” and lack of virtue, and that “habits of thrift and industry” could be instilled by imprisoning them in fortress-like buildings, thereby removing them from the perils of the press-gangs, the assize courts and the street, where the propertied classes would have had to endure the spectacle of their starvation.”

“The public expenditure connected with the construction and operation of the workhouse system was a source of self-congratulation for the aristocracy. Now the White poor could starve slowly in privacy instead of publicly on the street; with a sop to the conscience in the expectation that some might survive and learn “generosity toward their betters” and “virtuous habits” in the bargain.”

“In the year 1765, twenty-three indigent children were placed in the care of the St. Clement Danes’ workhouse. By January of the following year two had been discharged and eighteen were dead. In the same time-period, of seventy-eight children placed in the care of the workhouse at Holborn, sixtyfour were dead. Of eighteen children who entered St. George’s Middlesex workhouse, sixteen departed in a coffin. In the workhouse of the combined parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George’s Bloomsbury, the mortality rate for English children was 90%, moving one contemporary observer to opine that placing children in the workhouse, “is but a small remove from slaughter, for the child must die.” One is reminded of the remark of the English legal scholar William Blackstone, “It is much easier to extirpate than to amend mankind.”

“As the workhouse was revealed to be a “mansion of putridity,” a “humane reform along scientific lines” was called for and into the breach stepped the political economist Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s philosophy viewed the workhouse, when properly implemented according to the latest principles in “pauper administration” and the “panopticon principle of construction,” as the “scientific” management of poor Whites.”

“Bentham’s supposedly humane, model “pantopticon workhouse” was even more tomb-like and regimented than its predecessors and amounted to the creation of a prison warehouse for the storage of that vexatious species of humanity, the White “pauper.”

“An expose’ of political economy appears in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist in his characterization of the Bentham and Ricardo “philosophers” on the board of supervisors of a workhouse:

“The members of this board were very sage, deep, philosophical men, and when they came to turn their attention to the workhouse, they found out at once, what ordinary folks would never have discovered—that poor people liked it! It was a regular place of public entertainment for the poorer classes... a brick and mortar elysium... they established the rule, that all poor people should have the alternative (for they would compel nobody, not they) of being starved by a gradual process in the (work)house, or by a quick one out of it... They made a great many other wise and humane regulations...” (Oliver Twist, Penguin Classics edition, p. 55)”

“In the last stage of management of the British poor, the factory system of White slavery was instituted, the horrors of which were defended with the argument that its alternative was either the work house or enslavement overseas. Inside the factory, death was by no means certain, and “self-respect” (conferred by the captains of industry), wages and sustenance could be obtained. Therefore, the factory system of White slavery was yet another “mercy,” in the long history of “mercifully” substituting one form of enslavement of the British yeomanry for another and calling the process “progress” and “the advancement of civilization.”

“The advocates of all four of these systems of human organization have seldom argued their “merits” in comparison with the way of life offered the people by a traditional culture of craft-making and farming the land. To do so would be to compare the traditional rural existence of the White farmer and cottage handcraft-worker with the modern organization of the White working class. In such an analogy the evils of the latter would be overwhelmingly obvious.”

“Once land, the source of the independence of the British yeoman, had been removed, the resulting dependency attached to the White poor the station of servility, a process whose groundwork had been laid with the juridical defeat of ancestral peasant land claims as a result of the establishment of the concept of villein tenure in the 12th century; the consequences of which—evictions and enclosure— were not experienced on a mass scale until the Stuart era. Bentham had his elderly butler hanged for stealing two silver spoons. (John Vincent, “Hanging: A Weapon of Class War,” Sunday Telegraph, Nov. 24, 1991).”

“The attitude of the propertied classes toward the class of penurious Whites created by the avarice of the aristocracy, was expressed candidly by Joseph Townsend in his A Dissertation on the Poor Laws and by the Scottish magistrate Lord Braxfield in the 1793 trial of Thomas Muir. Muir had been arrested for the “crime” of advocating the right to vote for White working men. At his trial, Braxfield ruled that, “Mr. Muir might have known that no attention could be paid (by parliament) to such a rabble (the White workers who had petitioned for voting rights). What right have they to representation?... A government in every country should be just like a corporation; and in this country it is made up of the landed interest, which alone has the right to be represented.” (John F. Mackeson, Bristol Transported, p. 13).”

“Joseph Townsend argued both for the necessity of cheap White labor in boom economic times to relieve “delicate,” rich people from the need to perform “drudgery,” as well as for the elimination of the White “surplus poor” through starvation, during times of economic depression. In good economic times, Townsend claimed that it was only natural that there should be destitute White people, “so that there may always be some to fulfill the most servile, the most sordid, and the most ignoble offices in the community... the stock of human happiness is thereby much increased, while the more delicate are... relieved from drudgery...” During economic downturns: “Some check, some balance, is therefore absolutely needful, and hunger is the proper balance.”

“This plutocratic ideology, systematized in the late 18th century, was not a new or minority view. It had been expressed before, but with more wit and cant. Now, what had previously been discussed only in councils of state and the drawing rooms of the aristocracy was printed in the open, for public circulation and approbation from the “high born.”

“The ideas of modernity and progress, with their Benthamite view of tradition as a toxic encumbrance, eclipsed the customary restraints of mercantilism with every glimmer of the coming of the machine age. The doctrine of the inferiority of the White yeomanry and their expendability in the name of the cause of “advancing civilization,” was formulated to a greater degree with the publication in 1798 of the Rev. Thomas R. Malthus’ An Essay of the Principle of Population (greatly expanded and revised into two volumes in 1803). Malthus argued, “...it was pointless to provide relief for the poor, because this was a futile exercise, calculated simply to perpetuate their misery. He went further, denying that the (White) poor had any right to relief.” (Inglis, p. 69).”

“Malthus reasoned that as long as hungry Whites received food from charity they would continue having more children. Malthus demanded “moral restraint” (celibacy) from impoverished married White couples who, because they were poor, had no right to have children, in his view. Their only “moral” course was self-extinction and with their eventual demise as a class, so too would poverty be extinguished, according to Maithus.”

“Moral restraint, he argued, could operate among the poor only with very inconsiderable force, because the poor law removed the need for it, by offering allowances for children. Abolish the allowances, and the poor who exercised moral restraint would then be rewarded if they had no more children than they could afford—or better, no children at all.” (Inglis, pp. 70-71).”

“Malthus provided the perfect solution to a problem which had long-haunted the British ruling class, the “surplus” White population who always presented the potential for revolutionary overthrow of the system of privilege. Their devaluation over the centuries, from villein to slave to pauper to felon had now reached its nadir. Those not gainfully employed would be starved to death, all for the “maximum good of society.”

“The political economist David Ricardo also advocated the starvation of unemployed Whites: “By engaging to feed all who may require food you in some measure create an unlimited demand for human beings... the population and the rates (taxes) would go on increasing in a regular progression until the rich were reduced to poverty...” (Inglis, pp. 149-150).”

“Here was the raison d'etre of the machine age. The factory owners announced that they would take the White “refuse” doomed to otherwise starve and actually pay them. Thus was paved the way for the acceptance of factory slavery, celebrated as a mercy and the salvation of an otherwise bestial and valueless creature, the penurious White adult and child. If this assessment appears to place too great an emphasis on what in retrospect, was merely a fleeting and aberrant 1790s dogma of an Industrial revolution which quickly disabused itself of such extreme plutocratic thinking, one may cite a book written in 1990 by Clemson University economist Clark Nardinelli, which attempts to make the case that the worst crime of the Industrial Revolution, the enslavement, maiming and death of five, six and seven year-old White children in factories, was, “given the circumstances” a “benefit” and an “opportunity...”

“Nardinelli’s book has been hailed as a major achievement and the definitive history of the period of the Industrial Revolution. This recent work takes the same attitude toward White child slaves as their 18th century factory overseers. The views of the robber barons are being celebrated in the 1990s as the historically correct response toward poor Whites. In defending the enslavement of White children in factories, the professor writes, “An idyllic childhood devoted to education and play was simply not possible for most (White) children.” (Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution, p. 156).”

“One wonders what sort of reception Nardinelli and his university publisher would have received had he justified the enslavement of negro children in the antebellum South on the basis that an “idyllic childhood devoted to education and play was simply not possible for most Black children.”

“As we shall see, Nardinelli’s apologia is part of a long line of both capitalist and supposedly “humanitarian” socialist thinkers for whom two different standards of morality have obtained: what qualified as oppression of negro slaves and what qualified as oppression for White ones—beginning with the fact that it has been ruled “improper” to even refer to White slaves as such, and concluding with economic arguments in favor of White enslavement which, were they to be advanced in precisely the same terms toward any other race of people, would be denounced as an egregious denial of fundamental human rights.”

“That such a denial of the rights of the White laborer and the violence done to those rights is still current and influential two hundred years after Bentham, Malthus, Ricardo and Townsend, illustrates the low status of White working and poor people even in our own time. One may here argue that child labor in factories while repellent, was not slavery. Such an argument can only be based on a 20th century conception of a factory as a place merely of regimentation. The factories of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were very different establishments.”

"They Were White And They Were Slaves The Untold History Of The Enslavement Of Whites In Early America Michael A. Hoffman II"

A MUST READ:

https://archive.org/details/they-were-white-and-they-were-slaves-the-untold-history-of-the-enslavement-of-wh/memorandum%20re%20whit%20slavery/mode/2up

Now, most people may be curious as to why an American “Negro” Indian from the Louisiana Territory would be so interested in “White” slavery? Why exactly? Because my Great Grandfathers from France, Kingdom of Naples and elsewhere were “White” Europeans, who came to this land and married Ishak- Attakapas- Opelousa, Negro, “Indians.” My Great Grandfather [Birrotte] in 1690 was the first “White” man to marry into the tribe. My family is mixed race on this land, it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, and it includes, “White” people, that's why. Besides, other people should know the true history, that way they can treat others with respect or disrespect and know the reason “why.” Right now most don't, they know, “ROOTS.” They are “emotional reactionaries,” ready to embrace, and live, the ROOTS hoax, even if it destroys them, their lives and their nation. That's some commitment. You heard?

Lord have Mercy